Defensive Turnovers

This was a topic last year, and so far this year we are of the 3 teams that have ZERO turnovers.

Is that a product of teams running more against us or something else?

Largent80":1taif6dd said:

This was a topic last year, and so far this year we are of the 3 teams that have ZERO turnovers.

Is that a product of teams running more against us or something else?

Click to expand...

Don't know. But personally I think they are playing too passive and prefer stopping drives and forcing punts over scheming pick and/or fumble opportunities. It's keeping the points scored against us low, so there is that positive.

The common thought is teams are playing us close to the vest.

But, they are doing the same against other stout defenses like Denver, Minnesota and Carolina. Those teams still get turnovers and even defensive TD's.

I think we are too predictable and need to get more aggressive.

I miss seeing our DB's taking one to the house. Last regular season pick 6 by a DB was what...Thurmond vs Minnesota in 2013?

I think the last defensive TD we had was Wagner at home vs Arizona last season.

Way overdue.

I think teams are just playing us very carefully.

RussB":2rht7zmx said:

I think teams are just playing us very carefully.

Click to expand...

They play Denver, Carolina and now Minnesota carefully too.

Those teams come up with turnovers and defensive scores. Broncos had 2 TD'a last week and everyone knows how good their D is.

They bring it every game.

RussB":2eimk44n said:

I think teams are just playing us very carefully.

Click to expand...

That's not true. We're just not aggressive anymore.

When was the last time we had a Line backer jump a route in zone coverage. They prefer to come up and make tackles than get beat for YAC.

Turnovers come from a mindset to be positive at the moment they're playing within themselves

Now we are dissing the defense? That is stepping over the line, this defense is #1 in the NFL in both yardage and points allowed.

To say that people need to get their priorities in order is an understatement. Turnovers will come when they come, anyone that knows anything about defense will tell you that trying to force turnovers is an excellent recipe for giving up big plays.

You don't have to throw into the teeth of a defense when you already are up by 6 and your opponent cannot score points.

You notice our defense has some pretty good #s against us? Same reason. I don't need to take chances if I am essentially neck and neck with you, just wait for your offense to fall behind.

I don't agree this is a fault of the defense, just a lack of opportunity. There were only a few passes I saw that we could have gotten our hands on.

Two words. Kris Richard b


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Teams have game planned for the basic by design scheme of the Hawks for years. The key is for the Hawks is to have a lead and for pressure on the QB. So far, the Hawks have had very little of each. The D is stout, but defensive playmakers make plays when they have opportunities, and those opportunities happen when a QB is forced to make above average plays. If you cant force the opposing QB or RB to do that, well, you have what we have here.

The offense needs to put up points and the D needs to pressure the QB. For some of us old timers, the thought of a stellar league leading D and historically piss poor offense still stings. You don't win games by defense alone. and the Hawks have proven that once before. Probably before most posters were born, but it did happen right here in little old Seattle in the early 90's.


For the youngsters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Seat ... wks_season

I remember a Monday night game where they were mocking the offense and projecting our defensive players into possible offensive positions.

Frankly, that defense was pretty incredible.

Pretty simple really: teams don't have to take chances against our defense because our offense can't score enough points to require it.

Just saw iroc's post above. What he said.

CodeWarrior":1qxww126 said:

Pretty simple really: teams don't have to take chances against our defense because our offense can't score enough points to require it.

Just saw iroc's post above. What he said.

Click to expand...

For two games. It takes more than two of anything to be considered a trend. And to the poster above, we have been getting pressure on the QB this year. Tied for second most sacks in the league.

Perhaps if we blitzed more than twice a game we'd have a better chance at getting a strip-sack.

The defense has done its job this year but I'd like to see PC and Richard take a few more risks. The converse is that because the offense isn't scoring we can't take many risks. Somewhat of a conundrum.

Perspective..... The top two teams in turnovers this year so far have 7,6 and are both....wait for it

1-1, which I believe is the current record of our Hawks. The Giants are 2-0 and have zero turnovers. While they are never a negative they don't always translate to a win/loss. The Hawks will get theirs.

Flyingsquad23":o1wf3a2u said:

Perspective..... The top two teams in turnovers this year so far have 7,6 and are both....wait for it

1-1, which I believe is the current record of our Hawks. The Giants are 2-0 and have zero turnovers. While they are never a negative they don't always translate to a win/loss. The Hawks will get theirs.

Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with this at all, but just chiming in that the Vikings are 2-0 only because of defensive turnovers. Two defensive TDs against Tennessee won it for them as their offense struggled. They then forced 2 Rodgers turnovers against the Pack, the final a game-sealing pick with GB driving and trailing only by 3.
The Vikings remind me of us.

NOLAHawk":2aw13f9p said:

Two words. Kris Richard b


Second!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think teams are playing majorly conservative offense against us -- knowing that our style is predicated on keeping things tight and ball control.

If you can turn a match vs Seattle into a battle for field position, you can play the Seahawks close. That's why they occasionally look like they're playing down to a poor opponent.

There's also a lot of misfortune at play. Last year how many fumbles bounced kindly to an opponent?

Plus teams don't even challenge Sherman these days -- and he used to be a 6-8 pick a season CB.

If SEA gets a lead early on Sunday it should lead to some turnovers. That's another problem, SEA is a team that finishes stronger than it starts. Not conducive to forcing teams into mistakes.

dogorama":1ywu3lg7 said:

Now we are dissing the defense? That is stepping over the line, this defense is #1 in the NFL in both yardage and points allowed.

Click to expand...

Didn't see the OP "dissing" the defense. He just asked a perfectly reasonable question about Seattle being one of only three teams that haven't forced a turnover.

Back on point: a big part of this is slow starts on offense, both in games and in seasons. It seems like you can count on Seattle's offense looking like shit in the first quarter of a season (or more), and in the first two or three quarters of many games. It seems that Pete & Co. either can't correct it, or are totally comfortable with it. Which is both understandable given recent success, and incredibly frustrating.

When the Hawk offense doesn't score points, there's not much pressure on the opposing offense to push the ball down the field.

I know its not petes motto but i really wish they would try some heavy blitzes with man coverage like the broncos do. Or maybe do some more of that double A gap blitzing like they did on against AZ at home last year when bobby wagner forced a turnover.